Should SONY keep producing new DT lens offerings?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-23-2009, 04:39 PM
DonSchap

1 Attachment(s)

Full Frame capable lenses from NOW on.

Yeah ... those "Pro's" are certainly going to mount "DT" lenses on their Full Frame digital acquisitions. Attachment 50057

Come on ... go ahead and make an argument for not stepping up to Full Frame for the long run ... how silly.
10-23-2009, 05:08 PM
Peekayoh

Quote:

Originally Posted by jekostas

Don, probably 90%+ of that legacy glass doesn't have the resolving power to be used professionally on even current FF bodies, so this argument is absolute garbage.

Actually jekostas, I think it's true that current FF cameras are more forgiving of lens resolution than APS-C. Professionally, what's that about?

Don, you're still missing the point. I thought your argument for raising this thread was to say that Manufacturers ought to stop producing DT style lenses because APS-C was about to become extinct, but there's no evidence for this.
There's a whole bunch of people out there who have never used FF and who don't see it as an advantage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonSchap

..... Now that FF is making its way down to the "masses", the story has indeed changed as the paradigm between them does, financially. Who, in their right mind, would want to keep fighting with a 1.5 or 1.6 x crop of their best and most expensive glass? How bizarre is that?

Masses? There are no indicators to say that FF will outsell APS-C; I doubt it ever will, any more than Medium Format came close to 35mm sales.
Fighting with 1.5 crop?? As I said before, those who never owned a 35mm SLR don't know what you're talking about and those who have are simply adjusting to the different perspective rather than fighting it, just like you did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonSchap

..... My contention is, that no matter how good a smaller sensor is ... people still want ALL of their pricey lens, not just 2/3rds of it.

You're still arguing from the standpoint that everyone has this FF lenses, but they don't. Plenty of DSLR users only ever bought DT lenses and have no particular reason to buy into FF, rather the reverse seeing as they will have to replace all their DT glass.

Yes, those like me who own FF lens and who are used to film will buy into FF, funds permitting, but those who cut their teeth on APS-C will take a lot of persuading that there is any advantage in the switch. In fact it's not hard to find very creditable aguments against it.
10-23-2009, 05:21 PM
Elisha

Hey Don, you surely contributed in convincing some folks to buy DT lenses like the Tammy 17-50mm and the 18-250mm.
Anyway I always stayed away from buying DT lenses when there were so many nice Minolta lenses out there.
But i have to say my current 18-55mm DT kit-lens is a gem.
10-23-2009, 05:31 PM
Rooz

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonSchap

Yeah ... those "Pro's" are certainly going to mount "DT" lenses on their Full Frame digital acquisitions. Attachment 50057.

if you're so worried about what pros do why did you buy a sony to begin with ?
10-23-2009, 05:39 PM
DonSchap

1 Attachment(s)

Perhaps, the most compelling aspect of SONY FF cameras ...

Buying into a FF SONY camera is a bit easier with the "CROP" mode menu selection feature.

Attachment 50063

You can still use the cheaper-to-build, cheaper-to-you "DT" offerings on your new a850/a900/a9xx camera.

I can almost guaranty, you will not be smiling when you go for that f/3.5-5.6 "DT" base aperture. No, not fun. :rolleyes:
10-23-2009, 05:49 PM
jekostas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peekayoh

Actually jekostas, I think it's true that current FF cameras are more forgiving of lens resolution than APS-C. Professionally, what's that about?

Fine fine fine - "properly".

And in terms of resolution, the A900 has a pixel pitch of 5.94 micrometres, vs. 5.4 micrometres on the A700. They're about equally difficult on lenses.
10-23-2009, 05:54 PM
DonSchap

1 Attachment(s)

Making movies with a "DT" wonder lens ... or how dark is dark?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rooz

if you're so worried about what pros do why did you buy a sony to begin with ?

Oh, thanks for that, "Mr. Nikon" ... just because Nikon got out front with Canon in "Let's go to the movies" mode. :rolleyes: That is real "professional", considering you need an augmented stabilizer platform for your camera and professional-level software support to make anything decent with a DSLR.

You know, when the kid off the street can slap out easily formatted and decent imaging, maybe, just maybe. Until then, stick with your low-end DSLR and your $500 Handycam. It will be a whole lot easier and less time-wasting. I suggest focusing on the quality of one and the other, not both in ONE package. Heck, we cannot even get them off "DT" lenses.

"Help, help! It's a street fight for low quality photography and horrific internally mic'd sound-quality." I mean, "Holy P&S, Batman!" Attachment 50060
10-23-2009, 05:57 PM
Peekayoh

Quote:

Originally Posted by jekostas

Fine fine fine - "properly".

And in terms of resolution, the A900 has a pixel pitch of 5.94 micrometres, vs. 5.4 micrometres on the A700. They're about equally difficult on lenses.

Slightly more forgiving then, but there are 14MP APS-C as well.
10-23-2009, 06:05 PM
Rooz

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonSchap

Oh, thanks for that, "Mr. Nikon" ... just because Nikon got out front with Canon in "Let's go to the movies" mode. :rolleyes: That is real "professional", considering you need an augmented stabilizer platform for your camera and professional-level software support to make anything decent with a DSLR.

You know, when the kid off the street can slap out easily formatted and decent imaging, maybe, just maybe. Until then, stick with your low-end DSLR and your $500 Handycam. It will be a whole lot easier and less time-wasting. I suggest focusing on the quality of one and the other, not both in ONE package. Heck, we cannot even get them off "DT" lenses.

"Help, help! It's a street fight for low quality photography and horrific internally mic'd sound-quality." I mean, "Holy P&S, Batman!" Attachment 50060

dont know what movie mode has to do with anything. but as usual rant on some obtuse tangent going nowhere.
10-23-2009, 06:20 PM
TenD

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonSchap

I guaranty, you will not be smiling when you go for that f/3.5-5.6 "DT" base aperture. No, not fun. :rolleyes:

This coming from a man with 44% of his lenses starting from at least f/3.5! :eek: And that's after he's culled a large amount of the overlapping lenses from the list.

I thought it was you that was always touting the need for the DT/DX/Designed for digital etc etc lenses? Now, not so much?

Just in case you've forgotten, I will say it again, all of my glass is top notch stuff, and not a single lens in my bag is "digital". And all of my lenses are made for full frame, but I have no problems placing any of them on a crop camera body. In fact I like placing my telephoto lenses on my crop body to benefit from the crop virtually adding length to my focal length.

On top of all this, my next body will be a crop body. Canon 7D. :eek:

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page